RE: xml literal and xslt

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:41:15 -0000
• To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEFHCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

>
>
> One thing to bear in mind is DAML's requirements.  Should we
> consider cases
> where a daml:unambiguousProperty and a daml property with cardinality
> constraints take parseType=Literal values.
>

I had been forgetting this.

DAML/OWL does need literal equality over xml literals.

So we should, IMO, give words that allow for that.

I still think we could leave some implementation freedom over the unusual
namespaces. (i.e. the namespaces involved in the sentences with too many
relative clauses!)

A namespace used in a qname in an attribute value in an xml literal in RDF
that is not visibly used in an enclosing element within the same xml
literal.

Noting that full interoperability is not achieved for this case seems better
than trying to over-engineer for it.


Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 04:42:22 UTC